[SK in CV]

I don’t even know where to begin on this.

[quote=greekfire]@XBoxBoy: free markets would do a much better job of regulating themselves if they were allowed to fail. It’s the “too big too fail” bailouts and gov’t restrictions such as the Fair Housing Act that create a moral hazard.

@Arraya: I believe that the laws of economics are natural and not determined through the state. The state is supposed to allow free exchange of goods and services and enforce laws against things like fraud and counterfeit.

This is somewhat similar to the Civil Rights Act and why I think libertarian thought holds human beings to a higher standard. We don’t get our rights from government, we get them from our creator. It’s the people’s duty to act responsibly and respectfully towards one another.[/quote]

Free markets would have removed lead from paint? put seat belts into cars?

The Fair Housing Act creates a moral hazard by prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin? Is mixing coloreds and whites a moral hazard?

The state creates common currency. Without it, we’d be trading chickens and grain. Money is a social and political construct, nothing “natural” about it.

Libertarian thought holds human beings to a higher standard? Like slavery, “no niggers allowed” lunch counters, and no Jews allowed to own property in La Jolla? Are you arguing that in good time it would have all worked itself out? (Isn’t it possible that your “creator” actually sponsored the Fair Housing Act or the Civil Rights Act? Or is there some evidence that your “creator” is also a libertarian?)

[SK in CV]

I don’t even know where to begin on this.

[quote=greekfire]@XBoxBoy: free markets would do a much better job of regulating themselves if they were allowed to fail. It’s the “too big too fail” bailouts and gov’t restrictions such as the Fair Housing Act that create a moral hazard.

@Arraya: I believe that the laws of economics are natural and not determined through the state. The state is supposed to allow free exchange of goods and services and enforce laws against things like fraud and counterfeit.

This is somewhat similar to the Civil Rights Act and why I think libertarian thought holds human beings to a higher standard. We don’t get our rights from government, we get them from our creator. It’s the people’s duty to act responsibly and respectfully towards one another.[/quote]

Free markets would have removed lead from paint? put seat belts into cars?

The Fair Housing Act creates a moral hazard by prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin? Is mixing coloreds and whites a moral hazard?

The state creates common currency. Without it, we’d be trading chickens and grain. Money is a social and political construct, nothing “natural” about it.

Libertarian thought holds human beings to a higher standard? Like slavery, “no niggers allowed” lunch counters, and no Jews allowed to own property in La Jolla? Are you arguing that in good time it would have all worked itself out? (Isn’t it possible that your “creator” actually sponsored the Fair Housing Act or the Civil Rights Act? Or is there some evidence that your “creator” is also a libertarian?)

[SK in CV]

I don’t even know where to begin on this.

[quote=greekfire]@XBoxBoy: free markets would do a much better job of regulating themselves if they were allowed to fail. It’s the “too big too fail” bailouts and gov’t restrictions such as the Fair Housing Act that create a moral hazard.

@Arraya: I believe that the laws of economics are natural and not determined through the state. The state is supposed to allow free exchange of goods and services and enforce laws against things like fraud and counterfeit.

This is somewhat similar to the Civil Rights Act and why I think libertarian thought holds human beings to a higher standard. We don’t get our rights from government, we get them from our creator. It’s the people’s duty to act responsibly and respectfully towards one another.[/quote]

Free markets would have removed lead from paint? put seat belts into cars?

The Fair Housing Act creates a moral hazard by prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin? Is mixing coloreds and whites a moral hazard?

The state creates common currency. Without it, we’d be trading chickens and grain. Money is a social and political construct, nothing “natural” about it.

Libertarian thought holds human beings to a higher standard? Like slavery, “no niggers allowed” lunch counters, and no Jews allowed to own property in La Jolla? Are you arguing that in good time it would have all worked itself out? (Isn’t it possible that your “creator” actually sponsored the Fair Housing Act or the Civil Rights Act? Or is there some evidence that your “creator” is also a libertarian?)

[SK in CV]

I don’t even know where to begin on this.

[quote=greekfire]@XBoxBoy: free markets would do a much better job of regulating themselves if they were allowed to fail. It’s the “too big too fail” bailouts and gov’t restrictions such as the Fair Housing Act that create a moral hazard.

@Arraya: I believe that the laws of economics are natural and not determined through the state. The state is supposed to allow free exchange of goods and services and enforce laws against things like fraud and counterfeit.

This is somewhat similar to the Civil Rights Act and why I think libertarian thought holds human beings to a higher standard. We don’t get our rights from government, we get them from our creator. It’s the people’s duty to act responsibly and respectfully towards one another.[/quote]

Free markets would have removed lead from paint? put seat belts into cars?

The Fair Housing Act creates a moral hazard by prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin? Is mixing coloreds and whites a moral hazard?

The state creates common currency. Without it, we’d be trading chickens and grain. Money is a social and political construct, nothing “natural” about it.

Libertarian thought holds human beings to a higher standard? Like slavery, “no niggers allowed” lunch counters, and no Jews allowed to own property in La Jolla? Are you arguing that in good time it would have all worked itself out? (Isn’t it possible that your “creator” actually sponsored the Fair Housing Act or the Civil Rights Act? Or is there some evidence that your “creator” is also a libertarian?)

[SK in CV]

[quote=captcha][quote=Eugene] Now that it happened, neither the government, nor the private sector know how to close it. That’s not incompetence, that’s a simple fact of nature.[/quote]

That’s easy – Obama should nationalize local BP operations and either use Executive Order or take a deep breath, dive down and close the spill.[/quote]

I don’t know if this is a joke or not, other than the last few words. How would nationalizing BP solve anything?

[SK in CV]

[quote=captcha][quote=Eugene] Now that it happened, neither the government, nor the private sector know how to close it. That’s not incompetence, that’s a simple fact of nature.[/quote]

That’s easy – Obama should nationalize local BP operations and either use Executive Order or take a deep breath, dive down and close the spill.[/quote]

I don’t know if this is a joke or not, other than the last few words. How would nationalizing BP solve anything?

[SK in CV]

[quote=captcha][quote=Eugene] Now that it happened, neither the government, nor the private sector know how to close it. That’s not incompetence, that’s a simple fact of nature.[/quote]

That’s easy – Obama should nationalize local BP operations and either use Executive Order or take a deep breath, dive down and close the spill.[/quote]

I don’t know if this is a joke or not, other than the last few words. How would nationalizing BP solve anything?

[SK in CV]

[quote=captcha][quote=Eugene] Now that it happened, neither the government, nor the private sector know how to close it. That’s not incompetence, that’s a simple fact of nature.[/quote]

That’s easy – Obama should nationalize local BP operations and either use Executive Order or take a deep breath, dive down and close the spill.[/quote]

I don’t know if this is a joke or not, other than the last few words. How would nationalizing BP solve anything?

[SK in CV]

[quote=captcha][quote=Eugene] Now that it happened, neither the government, nor the private sector know how to close it. That’s not incompetence, that’s a simple fact of nature.[/quote]

That’s easy – Obama should nationalize local BP operations and either use Executive Order or take a deep breath, dive down and close the spill.[/quote]

I don’t know if this is a joke or not, other than the last few words. How would nationalizing BP solve anything?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: The problem isn’t the existing regulations. Its the (selective) enforcement of those regulations, and that selective enforcement is continuing under the Obama Administration as well.

[/quote]

I think it’s both. Sometimes. I’m not qualified to opine on whether better regulations or better enforcement of existing regulations might have helped.

But in the broader picture, I think the problem is two-fold. Regulations are almost invariably written by lobbyists. (and this applies to not just oil exploration, but financial regulation, health care regulations, EPA stuff, etc.) Congress and congressional staff are rarely qualified to write industry specific regs. So they receive (and I suspect, often seek) recommendations from both industry and anti-industry partisans. I don’t see this as a huge obstacle to good regulations. Elected officials can’t be expected to be chemists, or physicians, or financial experts. But what I do expect them to do, is to hold the interest of the electorate as whole as the primary beneficiary of all legislation. Not corporate interests. Not industry. So their job is to know enough (and acquire sufficient knowledge) to be able to evaluate recommendations, within those parameters, and decide which recommendation best fits with those goals.

Government incompetence is not acceptable. We know that there are some things, many gigantic things, that government can do well. I know anectodal evidence might lead to other conclusions but the postal service and medicare are two prime examples of huge government run services that work well, and at very least, competitively cost-wise as compared with the private sector.

Conservatives often attack liberals for wanting the government to do everything. Liberals attack conservatives for wanting less government. I don’t think either are accurate accusations. (except for some conservative politicians who do, indeed, claim and brag about wanting less government. See Haley Barbour and his bathtub.) Liberals want good, efficient, competent government. I think most conservatives agree. The difference is that liberals are more likely to think it’s possible and conservatives are more likely to believe it impossible.

I believe it is possible. I think it’s a leadership issue. We had an absolute failure in leadership and competence in almost all facets of government during the Bush years. There may have been some improvement under the current administration, but certainly not enough. Obama apologists (which I am certainly not) will argue that big boats take a long time to turn. Some truth there, but I haven’t seen sufficient evidence of increased competence.

What was the question? Oh. Proposed financial regs good. Could be better. As always, too much industry influence. I’d like to see fewer loopholes in derivitive contract regulations. Power/Energy, i got nothing. Other than legalizing marijuana in california could be a HUMUNGOUS boon to alternative energy research and development. Toke on, go green. All in one.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: The problem isn’t the existing regulations. Its the (selective) enforcement of those regulations, and that selective enforcement is continuing under the Obama Administration as well.

[/quote]

I think it’s both. Sometimes. I’m not qualified to opine on whether better regulations or better enforcement of existing regulations might have helped.

But in the broader picture, I think the problem is two-fold. Regulations are almost invariably written by lobbyists. (and this applies to not just oil exploration, but financial regulation, health care regulations, EPA stuff, etc.) Congress and congressional staff are rarely qualified to write industry specific regs. So they receive (and I suspect, often seek) recommendations from both industry and anti-industry partisans. I don’t see this as a huge obstacle to good regulations. Elected officials can’t be expected to be chemists, or physicians, or financial experts. But what I do expect them to do, is to hold the interest of the electorate as whole as the primary beneficiary of all legislation. Not corporate interests. Not industry. So their job is to know enough (and acquire sufficient knowledge) to be able to evaluate recommendations, within those parameters, and decide which recommendation best fits with those goals.

Government incompetence is not acceptable. We know that there are some things, many gigantic things, that government can do well. I know anectodal evidence might lead to other conclusions but the postal service and medicare are two prime examples of huge government run services that work well, and at very least, competitively cost-wise as compared with the private sector.

Conservatives often attack liberals for wanting the government to do everything. Liberals attack conservatives for wanting less government. I don’t think either are accurate accusations. (except for some conservative politicians who do, indeed, claim and brag about wanting less government. See Haley Barbour and his bathtub.) Liberals want good, efficient, competent government. I think most conservatives agree. The difference is that liberals are more likely to think it’s possible and conservatives are more likely to believe it impossible.

I believe it is possible. I think it’s a leadership issue. We had an absolute failure in leadership and competence in almost all facets of government during the Bush years. There may have been some improvement under the current administration, but certainly not enough. Obama apologists (which I am certainly not) will argue that big boats take a long time to turn. Some truth there, but I haven’t seen sufficient evidence of increased competence.

What was the question? Oh. Proposed financial regs good. Could be better. As always, too much industry influence. I’d like to see fewer loopholes in derivitive contract regulations. Power/Energy, i got nothing. Other than legalizing marijuana in california could be a HUMUNGOUS boon to alternative energy research and development. Toke on, go green. All in one.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: The problem isn’t the existing regulations. Its the (selective) enforcement of those regulations, and that selective enforcement is continuing under the Obama Administration as well.

[/quote]

I think it’s both. Sometimes. I’m not qualified to opine on whether better regulations or better enforcement of existing regulations might have helped.

But in the broader picture, I think the problem is two-fold. Regulations are almost invariably written by lobbyists. (and this applies to not just oil exploration, but financial regulation, health care regulations, EPA stuff, etc.) Congress and congressional staff are rarely qualified to write industry specific regs. So they receive (and I suspect, often seek) recommendations from both industry and anti-industry partisans. I don’t see this as a huge obstacle to good regulations. Elected officials can’t be expected to be chemists, or physicians, or financial experts. But what I do expect them to do, is to hold the interest of the electorate as whole as the primary beneficiary of all legislation. Not corporate interests. Not industry. So their job is to know enough (and acquire sufficient knowledge) to be able to evaluate recommendations, within those parameters, and decide which recommendation best fits with those goals.

Government incompetence is not acceptable. We know that there are some things, many gigantic things, that government can do well. I know anectodal evidence might lead to other conclusions but the postal service and medicare are two prime examples of huge government run services that work well, and at very least, competitively cost-wise as compared with the private sector.

Conservatives often attack liberals for wanting the government to do everything. Liberals attack conservatives for wanting less government. I don’t think either are accurate accusations. (except for some conservative politicians who do, indeed, claim and brag about wanting less government. See Haley Barbour and his bathtub.) Liberals want good, efficient, competent government. I think most conservatives agree. The difference is that liberals are more likely to think it’s possible and conservatives are more likely to believe it impossible.

I believe it is possible. I think it’s a leadership issue. We had an absolute failure in leadership and competence in almost all facets of government during the Bush years. There may have been some improvement under the current administration, but certainly not enough. Obama apologists (which I am certainly not) will argue that big boats take a long time to turn. Some truth there, but I haven’t seen sufficient evidence of increased competence.

What was the question? Oh. Proposed financial regs good. Could be better. As always, too much industry influence. I’d like to see fewer loopholes in derivitive contract regulations. Power/Energy, i got nothing. Other than legalizing marijuana in california could be a HUMUNGOUS boon to alternative energy research and development. Toke on, go green. All in one.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: The problem isn’t the existing regulations. Its the (selective) enforcement of those regulations, and that selective enforcement is continuing under the Obama Administration as well.

[/quote]

I think it’s both. Sometimes. I’m not qualified to opine on whether better regulations or better enforcement of existing regulations might have helped.

But in the broader picture, I think the problem is two-fold. Regulations are almost invariably written by lobbyists. (and this applies to not just oil exploration, but financial regulation, health care regulations, EPA stuff, etc.) Congress and congressional staff are rarely qualified to write industry specific regs. So they receive (and I suspect, often seek) recommendations from both industry and anti-industry partisans. I don’t see this as a huge obstacle to good regulations. Elected officials can’t be expected to be chemists, or physicians, or financial experts. But what I do expect them to do, is to hold the interest of the electorate as whole as the primary beneficiary of all legislation. Not corporate interests. Not industry. So their job is to know enough (and acquire sufficient knowledge) to be able to evaluate recommendations, within those parameters, and decide which recommendation best fits with those goals.

Government incompetence is not acceptable. We know that there are some things, many gigantic things, that government can do well. I know anectodal evidence might lead to other conclusions but the postal service and medicare are two prime examples of huge government run services that work well, and at very least, competitively cost-wise as compared with the private sector.

Conservatives often attack liberals for wanting the government to do everything. Liberals attack conservatives for wanting less government. I don’t think either are accurate accusations. (except for some conservative politicians who do, indeed, claim and brag about wanting less government. See Haley Barbour and his bathtub.) Liberals want good, efficient, competent government. I think most conservatives agree. The difference is that liberals are more likely to think it’s possible and conservatives are more likely to believe it impossible.

I believe it is possible. I think it’s a leadership issue. We had an absolute failure in leadership and competence in almost all facets of government during the Bush years. There may have been some improvement under the current administration, but certainly not enough. Obama apologists (which I am certainly not) will argue that big boats take a long time to turn. Some truth there, but I haven’t seen sufficient evidence of increased competence.

What was the question? Oh. Proposed financial regs good. Could be better. As always, too much industry influence. I’d like to see fewer loopholes in derivitive contract regulations. Power/Energy, i got nothing. Other than legalizing marijuana in california could be a HUMUNGOUS boon to alternative energy research and development. Toke on, go green. All in one.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: The problem isn’t the existing regulations. Its the (selective) enforcement of those regulations, and that selective enforcement is continuing under the Obama Administration as well.

[/quote]

I think it’s both. Sometimes. I’m not qualified to opine on whether better regulations or better enforcement of existing regulations might have helped.

But in the broader picture, I think the problem is two-fold. Regulations are almost invariably written by lobbyists. (and this applies to not just oil exploration, but financial regulation, health care regulations, EPA stuff, etc.) Congress and congressional staff are rarely qualified to write industry specific regs. So they receive (and I suspect, often seek) recommendations from both industry and anti-industry partisans. I don’t see this as a huge obstacle to good regulations. Elected officials can’t be expected to be chemists, or physicians, or financial experts. But what I do expect them to do, is to hold the interest of the electorate as whole as the primary beneficiary of all legislation. Not corporate interests. Not industry. So their job is to know enough (and acquire sufficient knowledge) to be able to evaluate recommendations, within those parameters, and decide which recommendation best fits with those goals.

Government incompetence is not acceptable. We know that there are some things, many gigantic things, that government can do well. I know anectodal evidence might lead to other conclusions but the postal service and medicare are two prime examples of huge government run services that work well, and at very least, competitively cost-wise as compared with the private sector.

Conservatives often attack liberals for wanting the government to do everything. Liberals attack conservatives for wanting less government. I don’t think either are accurate accusations. (except for some conservative politicians who do, indeed, claim and brag about wanting less government. See Haley Barbour and his bathtub.) Liberals want good, efficient, competent government. I think most conservatives agree. The difference is that liberals are more likely to think it’s possible and conservatives are more likely to believe it impossible.

I believe it is possible. I think it’s a leadership issue. We had an absolute failure in leadership and competence in almost all facets of government during the Bush years. There may have been some improvement under the current administration, but certainly not enough. Obama apologists (which I am certainly not) will argue that big boats take a long time to turn. Some truth there, but I haven’t seen sufficient evidence of increased competence.

What was the question? Oh. Proposed financial regs good. Could be better. As always, too much industry influence. I’d like to see fewer loopholes in derivitive contract regulations. Power/Energy, i got nothing. Other than legalizing marijuana in california could be a HUMUNGOUS boon to alternative energy research and development. Toke on, go green. All in one.

[SK in CV]

[quote=mike92104]

[quote=Eugene]
Or is there some counterintuitive mechanism that will make companies like BP regulate themselves if the government regulation goes away?[/quote]

I think it looks pretty damn bad when you dump a bunch of oil into the gulf, and that your sales will take a hit. Not to mention the huge cleanup costs. It’s much cheaper and better PR to prevent spills.

Also remember that Libertarianism isn’t anarchy.[/quote]

I’m not sure what your response has to do with the quoted text. The spill was bad for BP. Regardless of regulations. The question is which would have been more likely to prevent it: More and/or better government regulation or less?

[Author]

Posts